a little politics(U.S president race)

[Dobber]

Bush has reiterated US will turn the country over to the new Iraqi government on June 30th. Supposedly US will be pulling out before Kerry gets a chance to leave the troops there.

[the knightly sword]

Originally posted by KOSKnight
ya war ****s but hey its mankind. Civilians in Iraq would have died anyways by Saddams military/Fedayine keep him in power and alot more in his life time would have died and then when his son takes the throne it will still continue.

Kerry being president im not to sure everything he said in his campaign race is what every other president says. He wants to take out troops from Iraq well dam so does Bush but it is just not the time to do so since it aint to stable over there and doin that at wrong time could cause civil war between religous factions.

The reasons for going in but the utcome for the Iraq ppl will be there best time in life since they now dont have to worry about being killed.

if there were everlasting peace before he got president do you think he would kill people as hedid that basterd

[Henrik]

Originally posted by Haegemon
We could use nukes to exterminate all muslims and still will had had the problem between us.

Well, don't ya think you're a bit harsh there Haegemon I.E. talking about exterminating all muslems.....when it's in reality only a minority of fanatic fundamentalists who causing troubles - I personaly know quite a few muslems and they're all basicaly fed up with explainig to others that they don't really sympathies with those who have more extreme views.

[Platina]

Originally posted by Henrik
Well, don't ya think you're a bit harsh there Haegemon I.E. talking about exterminating all muslems.....when it's in reality only a minority of fanatic fundamentalists who causing troubles - I personaly know quite a few muslems and they're all basicaly fed up with explainig to others that they don't really sympathies with those who have more extreme views.


I totally agree with you.

[greywulf]

Originally posted by Haegemon
We could use nukes to exterminate all muslims and still will had had the problem between us.

What's the greater crime??? Believing in something or believing that people should not be allowed to practice their beliefs??? I am referring to state policy in France and Japan in particular who have outlawed certain religious beliefs and practices in one way or another. Belief is fundamental to human nature in all forms, whether it is seen as religious extremism or athieism.

In my opinion, Western ideals of a rational, non-religious state that suppresses religious customs and beliefs are far more destructive to humanity then these muslims you might want to nuke. Granted, some extremists want to inflict harm and have the means to do it, but that is often a form of revenge against the murdering and theft that the West has perpetrated against Muslims around the world (with America being the strongest symbol of those Western transgressions). That doesn't make it right, but looking at the history behind all acts of terrorism, all parties involved are generally guilty of a number of inhumane acts.

Protecting humanity's right to believe is far more important then protecting a few individuals. The worst thing that could ever happen to this world is for everyone to be forced to dress, act, and believe a certain way... and that's the role France in particular is beginning to take. The diversity of life, of humanity in all its forms, is the most beautiful thing this planet has to offer. Extremists on both sides need to be dealt with, religious and non-religious, but the destruction of a specific type of people and a specific way of life is the saddest and worst thing that humanity can ever do to itself.

[Cabrito]

haha Bush's song
http://charges.uol.com.br/vercharge.php?idcharge=1343&modo=som
is not in english, but is easy understand
:D :cool:

[Henrik]

Originally posted by greywulf
What's the greater crime??? Believing in something or believing that people should not be allowed to practice their beliefs??? I am referring to state policy in France and Japan in particular who have outlawed certain religious beliefs and practices in one way or another. Belief is fundamental to human nature in all forms, whether it is seen as religious extremism or athieism.

In my opinion, Western ideals of a rational, non-religious state that suppresses religious customs and beliefs are far more destructive to humanity then these muslims you might want to nuke. Granted, some extremists want to inflict harm and have the means to do it, but that is often a form of revenge against the murdering and theft that the West has perpetrated against Muslims around the world (with America being the strongest symbol of those Western transgressions). That doesn't make it right, but looking at the history behind all acts of terrorism, all parties involved are generally guilty of a number of inhumane acts.

Protecting humanity's right to believe is far more important then protecting a few individuals. The worst thing that could ever happen to this world is for everyone to be forced to dress, act, and believe a certain way... and that's the role France in particular is beginning to take. The diversity of life, of humanity in all its forms, is the most beautiful thing this planet has to offer. Extremists on both sides need to be dealt with, religious and non-religious, but the destruction of a specific type of people and a specific way of life is the saddest and worst thing that humanity can ever do to itself.

I really like your POVs greywulf :go: after having read it twice i really had to sit back and think over what you've wrote :)

I also like that you apparently are able to see the issues from a different side aswell - a coin has to sides and so do most things in life ;)

[Teutonic_Knight]

What's the greater crime??? Believing in something or believing that people should not be allowed to practice their beliefs??? I am referring to state policy in France and Japan in particular who have outlawed certain religious beliefs and practices in one way or another. Belief is fundamental to human nature in all forms, whether it is seen as religious extremism or athieism.

In my opinion, Western ideals of a rational, non-religious state that suppresses religious customs and beliefs are far more destructive to humanity then these muslims you might want to nuke. Granted, some extremists want to inflict harm and have the means to do it, but that is often a form of revenge against the murdering and theft that the West has perpetrated against Muslims around the world (with America being the strongest symbol of those Western transgressions). That doesn't make it right, but looking at the history behind all acts of terrorism, all parties involved are generally guilty of a number of inhumane acts.

Protecting humanity's right to believe is far more important then protecting a few individuals. The worst thing that could ever happen to this world is for everyone to be forced to dress, act, and believe a certain way... and that's the role France in particular is beginning to take. The diversity of life, of humanity in all its forms, is the most beautiful thing this planet has to offer. Extremists on both sides need to be dealt with, religious and non-religious, but the destruction of a specific type of people and a specific way of life is the saddest and worst thing that humanity can ever do to itself.

Now before I get started, I like Bush he has done the best he can and will get my vote. Is he perfect? Certainly not, however, given the two choices he is, in my opinion, the most logical choice.


Now on to greywulf's post. While I whole heartedly agree that to suppress ones ability to practice what they holistically want is bad, however, it is not on scale with what the Muslim extremists do. I can't speak intelligently on the French policies or Japans, but I would certainly think that people are not being killed simply because they don't have the same view as another such as in the Muslim case.

When was the last time you saw Western civilization Christians killing Muslims simply because they were "heathen?" The Muslims that you lump together with other Western civs have no problem doing just that and they are very retardant to other cultures and not only shun them, but completely outlaw them.

Revenge from theft, murder...to what exactly are you referring to or is that just a blanket statement? As far as foreign policies every country has them, and to other countries they all stink. Do you think the foreign policy of France, Netherlands or Spain would fit Americas or vice versa?


As far as protecting peoples right to chose and practice what they want I don't think you will find a single person in here that disagrees with you.

[greywulf]

Originally posted by Teutonic_Knight
The Muslims that you lump together with other Western civs have no problem doing just that and they are very retardant to other cultures and not only shun them, but completely outlaw them.

For blanket statements I think that tops them all. I never said that the West specifically targets Muslims for exploitation and so on. Just check out Christian and traditionalist Africans, Latin Americans, South East Asians, Native Americans, and so on... All are exploited on a regular basis. I know many Muslims and they are just as open or even more so then most North Americans. You are talking about extremists, and I know many extremists who like to shun and outlaw things they don't believe in (Bush and gay marriage perhaps?).

Originally posted by Teutonic_Knight
Revenge from theft, murder...to what exactly are you referring to or is that just a blanket statement? As far as foreign policies every country has them, and to other countries they all stink. Do you think the foreign policy of France, Netherlands or Spain would fit Americas or vice versa?

Theft and murder... US and Iran's Oil Nationalization Scheme in 1951. Actually read up on anything about Iran after 1951, such as the Islamic Revolution of 79 and the subsequent American backed Iraqi invasion, a great symbol of American-Middle Eastern foreign relations. US/Western control over Middle Eastern oil, US involvment in Israel against the Palestinians (that's the key issue right now), against Egypt and other states in the past through the IMF and WorldBank. I think for the most part, yes European countries, especially France, have very 'Western' foreign policies of take take take. Belgium is still doing it in the Congo, France is still doing it in its former colonies such as Senegal and Cote D'Ivoire. The US, well ya... the king (ring) to rule them all.

[Angryminer]

Greywulf:
You've got something seriously wrong with france's domestic and foreign policies...

Angryminer

[Havoc]

Originally posted by Angryminer
Greywulf:
You've got something seriously wrong with france's domestic and foreign policies...

Angryminer
man thats because he is Canadaian i live in Canada and am a citizen and most people i go to school with hate the franch people i dounno maby its because they force us to learn there ways of life(i dont see y i must learn their language F***) but i admit it in Canada we have a problem with the franch and there is no real reason i gess we just doo...:D

[Angryminer]

My advice:
Inform yourself.
Read serious newspapers.
Oh, too bad you're living on the wrong side of the atlantic. You've got no serious newspapers.
Well, then, stop talking about those things ;) .

Angryminer

[greywulf]

Oh I don't like the french do I? Let's see, I was born into the french language, half my family is french, half my friends are french... So maybe you should stop drawing generalizations Havoc, eh? Last time I checked I enjoyed knowing and being a part of french culture.

And to Angryminer,

Read up on Rwanda and French foreign policy.

Read up French foreign policy and the Ivory Coast. Yes, there are troops there, yes they are trying to help the Ivorians live together, but at the same time, a big reason they are there is because of the large number of french citizens and economic interests in the country.

Read up on French development budgets for former African colonies and their famous "white elephants", massive development projects that ended up not working, not finished, destructive to the local environment, or simply useless.

Granted, France has had a history of partial tolerance in some areas for its African colonies in comparison to other colonizing states, looking at the full citizenship communes in Senegal. However, the wars of independence in Algeria and Morocco tarnish that image pretty quickly.

As for domestic policy, their new banning of religious symbols is a human rights violation if I ever saw one. Especially when it so profoundly affects religious minorities in the country (muslims being the most vocal in our news on this side of the ocean). You may not agree with me, but as a student of religion I prefer understanding and cooperation to exclusion.

And I'm not going to respond to your snarky attitude because frankly, I find it arrogant, petty and disgusting.

[Haegemon]

Originally posted by Henrik
Well, don't ya think you're a bit harsh there Haegemon I.E. talking about exterminating all muslems.....when it's in reality only a minority of fanatic fundamentalists who causing troubles - I personaly know quite a few muslems and they're all basicaly fed up with explainig to others that they don't really sympathies with those who have more extreme views.

Only was a metaphor Henrik.
In the case a president becomes into a berseker and decides to destroy all, don't means the problem will end.

[Havoc]

now that you brought up Rewanda well i see it this way the Americans and there allies consider Rewanda a geneside 800 000 people were killed on the othere hand 7 000 000 Ukrainian people were starved to death by Stalin and what do you think the Americans and allies say "We dont Give A F***" why? you ask, because they just dont feel the same responsabilaty as In Rewanda why? because in Rewanda they were told bring more troops or people are going to die. did The americans and Allies do that nooooo... and 800 000 die every one is saying OMG well 7 000 000 (seven million) Ukrainian people are starved to death and they say (W/E) i have see pictures of the people that starved they looked no diftrent then the jews on the pictures of the Holikost(dont know proper spelling)...!!!
It was called the great "Famine" but there was plenty of food in the hevily guarded storage fasilitys waiting to be sold and the money spent on silk 4 parashoots and wepons. In the end 7 million dead most of the food just rotted in the graneries lots of familly members dead, fat Americans and allies sitting in the UN saying (W/E)
here is a link about the famine


http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/famine.html
sorry 4 my strong patriotic views...
:sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad:

[Platina]

Originally posted by Havoc
[B]i have see pictures of the people that starved they looked no diftrent then the jews on the pictures of the Holikost(dont know proper spelling)...!!!


Holocaust

[greywulf]

Originally posted by Havoc
In the end 7 million dead most of the food just rotted in the graneries lots of familly members dead, fat Americans and allies sitting in the UN saying (W/E)
here is a link about the famine

It sounds like a sad story, to be honest I had never heard specifically about the Ukranian famine though I know some history behind Stalin/Communist land reforms. Not to be critical, but the UN wasn't formed until 1945, after the famine. The League of Nations was relatively weak, and it's unfair to blame Americans specifically for inaction since they weren't even a part of the League, nor were they as powerful as they are today. It would make more sense to blame places like Britain, Germany, Italy for inaction.

And genocide to me isn't about numbers, but intent. There was a massive famine in China under Mao due to his communist land reform late 50s/early 60s that left between 30-40 million dead. It is no better or worse imo than what happened in Rwanda, or the Ukraine for that matter.

[Teutonic_Knight]

For blanket statements I think that tops them all. I never said that the West specifically targets Muslims for exploitation and so on. Just check out Christian and traditionalist Africans, Latin Americans, South East Asians, Native Americans, and so on... All are exploited on a regular basis.

You missed my whole point and took one part of the paragraph. The whole issue was that while some may or may not block ones ability to practice what they chose is not the same as killing another for the same purpose, which was exactly my statement.



Are people in regions today still being exploited? Sure, however, to the degree that you make the assumptions is far less than the word exploit implies. Besides when does "exploiting" deserve hatred and contempt when those being exploited are making more than they would if the companies were not there.

Fact, companies such as Dell, Levi ect outsource work to be done in countries abroad because the economy over there is in most cases very corrupt, but those being "exploited" are making far more money than they would if the companies were not there. That then begs the question should these companies pull out and put those workers back into the pool of others who make 200 dollars a month on average, or would those being "exploited" rather make about twice that by working at one of those evil corporations.

Right now as we speak there are Muslims exploiting their own people, Sudan come to mind? Also today there still exists slavery within Africa but it's black on black so it gets little to no spotlight because it just doesn't fit the stereotype of all being enslaved by fat white Americans.

As far as Bush being extremist I hate to tell you that over 70% of Americans don't support gay marriages. The most liberal state in the union, California, had an amendment voted on and over 60% of the people voted to NOT ratify same sex marriage, and it was before Bush ever came to office. Not and to mention that Clinton passed the SAME bill called the "Defense of marriage act" and it outlawed same sex marriages for the reason to protect the sanctity of marriage. Your example is a pitiful one because its not illegal to be gay and you certainly can't be put to death for it, nor is it illegal to engage in homosexual activity. There is also nothing that a married heterosexual couple couple can do financially or legally that a gay couple can't.


Theft and murder... US and Iran's Oil Nationalization Scheme in 1951. Actually read up on anything about Iran after 1951, such as the Islamic Revolution of 79 and the subsequent American backed Iraqi invasion, a great symbol of American-Middle Eastern foreign relations. US/Western control over Middle Eastern oil, US involvment in Israel against the Palestinians (that's the key issue right now), against Egypt and other states in the past through the IMF and WorldBank. I think for the most part, yes European countries, especially France, have very 'Western' foreign policies of take take take. Belgium is still doing it in the Congo, France is still doing it in its former colonies such as Senegal and Cote D'Ivoire. The US, well ya... the king (ring) to rule them all.


The US and Iran oil nationalization scheme should aptly be named, The British failure to release it’s foot hold on Persian oil. While the United States is partly to blame the whole mess can summarily be blamed on two things, Britain’s inability to release it’s hold on Iranian oil, and Anthony Eden who turned down a US brokered deal. Did the US act poorly after that towards Iran, yea, but I hate to spill the beans it was mainly a coup sponsored by MI6 with “help” from the CIA after being informed that a Communist takeover was possible which was a very likely scenario. The British actually thought that the United States was initially behind Mughabies(SP?) nationalization attempt. One must also remember that the United States wasn’t exactly old pros at the foreign relations department as we had only been in the spotlight for roughly 6 years.

As far as the Shah is concerned we trained his police, which in turn he used to keep dissentious people quite as I am very well aware of this, however, that begs the question as to who is right and who is wrong. Is Iran better off now, it still does the same thing; suppresses people’s ability to express themselves all under the auspices of “religion.” Iran is now financially in the poor house so to speak, but 35 years ago it was one of the best growing economies in the ME. Did you also know that a lot of the revolters revolted because they wanted more freedoms, which after the revolt they lost all that the Shah had actually allowed? One of the most ironic things is that just before all the revolting started the Shah had actually allowed for greater freedoms.

The ole Iraqi backed invasion theory, now this can be asked right quickly, who made most of the weapons Iraq used to invade Iran with, I’ll give you a hint it wasn’t American weapons. Second a lot of myth concerning the invasion is that America prodded the Iraqis into invading Iran, but one must remember that there was also a dispute over the Shat al-arab waterway which Iraq was unjustly holding, also Iran was supporting Kurdish dissenters in Iraq to help them overthrow Sadaam. Now which countries were the primary donors of financial support to Iraq? I’ll give you another hint, it wasn’t the United States, it was Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. It wasn’t until Iran started pushing Iraq back that America got involved and that was mostly through intelligence only. Iraq had actually tried to get peace with Iran to establish pre-war borders but Iran would actually be the ones who prolonged it.


The US control over ME oil? The same oil which the United States had it used as a weapon against them in the late 70’s and early 80’s? If anything the United States is trying very hard to pull itself away from the ME and develop Mexico, Venezuela, Peru and other oil producing countries in the Western Hemisphere. America right now gets more oil from sources outside of the ME than it does from it so it’s beginning to work. I’m so tired of seeing America blamed for EVERTHING that goes wrong within a country or region. If we are purchasing products from a country whether it be oil, chairs or freaking fish its up to that government to use the money properly we can’t be expected to hold their hand completely.

People have this perception that America does absolutely nothing to help the world and it’s only purpose is self preservation greed. A perfect example would be Somalia, what could we possibly gain by helping them? Our troops were there to make sure the food was distributed to those that need it not the warlords and look at how that turned out. How do I know this, I was there for Christ sakes as I was also in Haiti as well.


As far as Israel goes I find extremely annoying and hypocritical of Arab countries to demand a Palestinian state only after they lost land to Israel after attacking it how many times for one single goal, to exterminate the Jewish people. The same land that is purposed to be a Palestinian state is land coincidently lost to Israel how convenient is that. Those same countries who say Israel is “occupying a Palestinian people are completely deaf to Syria occupying Lebanon, and just as deaf to the refugees that sit on their border because they don’t want them. Have you forgotten that it was the Arabs who refused to live in peaceful existence with the Jews, thus launching several attacks to eliminate them?


Eliminating the United States out of different countries economies would be devastating such as it would to eliminate other countries from ours because the world has truly evolved into a single economy that is very intertwined.

[Teutonic_Knight]

Havok, what you say is truly sad and I agree with greywulf's assessment that numbers aren't as important as intent. The problem is that what could have been done? Nothing, Stalin went to great pains to hide the fact that he was receiving lend lease equipment during his war with Germany, he sure would not have openly accepted any help from America or other allies because he, like Hitler, was a megalomaniac.

[Havoc]

Originally posted by greywulf
It sounds like a sad story, to be honest I had never heard specifically about the Ukranian famine though I know some history behind Stalin/Communist land reforms. Not to be critical, but the UN wasn't formed until 1945, after the famine. The League of Nations was relatively weak, and it's unfair to blame Americans specifically for inaction since they weren't even a part of the League, nor were they as powerful as they are today. It would make more sense to blame places like Britain, Germany, Italy for inaction.



the whole time i said America and allies sorry if i wasnt clear. I dont want people to say that the allies were in active to help that is in the past. I just want people in the UN to acnowlage that the famine happened and that it was geniside